The Islands Are Different: Human Perceptions of Game Species in Hawaii

Abstract

Hawaii's game animals are all non-native species, which provokes human-wildlife conflict among stakeholders. The management of human-wildlife conflict in Hawaii is further complicated by the discrete nature of island communities. Our goal was to understand the desires and perceived values or impacts of game held by residents of Hawaii regarding six game species [pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), mouflon (Ovis musimon), axis deer (Axis axis), turkeys (Melagris gallopavo), and doves (Geopelia striata)]. We measured the desired abundance of game on the six main Hawaiian Islands using the potential for conflict index and identified explanatory variables for those desires via recursive partitioning. In 2011 we surveyed 5,407 residents (2,360 random residents and 3,047 pre-identified stakeholders). Overall 54.5 and 27.6 % of the emailed and mailed surveys were returned (n = 1,510). A non-respondent survey revealed that respondents and non-respondents had similar interest in wildlife, and a similar education level. The desired abundance of game differed significantly among stakeholders, species, and islands. The desired abundance scores were higher for axis deer, mouflon, and turkeys compared to pigs, goats or doves. Enjoyment at seeing game and the cultural value of game were widespread explanatory variables for desired abundance. Models for Lanai emphasized the economic value of game, whereas models for Maui identified the potential for game to contaminate soil and water. Models for Oahu and Kauai revealed concern for human health and safety. Given our findings we recommend managers design separate management plans for each island taking into consideration the values of residents.

Are Terrestrial Biological Invasions Different in the Tropics?

“…Further, the Neotropical shrub Chromolaena odorata is widely used in both West Africa and tropical Asia, often for medicinal purposes (Aigbedion-Atalor 2020; Phumthum et al 2018). This is not just an issue in developing countries: the attitudes of indigenous people to invasive vertebrates in northern Australia do not align with the native/non-native dichotomy (Robinson et al 2005), and this deviation is also true of local people-particularly recreational hunters-in the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere in the Pacific (Lohr et al 2014). It is probable that few invaders will ever be eradicated after establishment, except on islands, and control efforts are rarely effective in preventing all adverse impacts, so adaptation is as important for invasive species management as it is for climate change (Howard 2019).…”

Perceptions of Wild Pig Impact, Management, and Policy in Alabama

“…Based on previous human dimensions literature (Messmer et al 1997 ; Daigle et al 2002 ; Lohr et al 2014 ) that found that stakeholder perspectives significantly differ by the group they belong to, we had expected these groups (hunters, farmers, forest landowners) to be considerably dissimilar from one another, due to the variability in their interactions and experiences with wild pigs. However, farmers and forestland owners’ opinions on wild pig management, policy, and impact were quite similar, whereas hunters’ perspectives differed the most frequently from the other groups.…”

Evaluating unmarked abundance estimators using remote cameras and aerial surveys

“…There were 19 threatened and endangered plant species on the installation that were protected from ungulate browsing by fencing units; however, high sheep density outside of units occasionally resulted in their ingress through gates, requiring costly removal efforts. Eradication of sheep to alleviate pressure on natural resources was not practical and was also a source of conflict among 2 groups of Hawai`i residents: hunters that had limited access to game species and those concerned with damages caused by introduced species (Lohr et al 2014). Given the practical and logistical constraints associated with eradication as well as the cultural sensitivity of the topic, public hunting remained the primary mechanism of population control.…”